Please Share this:

Like this:

Related

Watts holds a MA in Theological Studies from United Theological Seminary. He is currently a Ph.D. student at the University of the Free State, analyzing Paul’s model of atonement in Galatians, as well as seeking an MA in Clinical Mental Health at Adams State University. He is the author of Mimetic Criticism of the Gospel of Mark: Introduction and Commentary (Wipf and Stock, 2013), a co-editor and contributor to From Fear to Faith: Stories of Hitting Spiritual Walls (Energion, 2013), and Praying in God's Theater, Meditations on the Book of Revelation (Wipf and Stock, 2014).

No, he’s not correct. He was connecting seduction and rape, and there is no connection. Rape is an act of violence, not of sex (example: 2-year-olds are raped, and I’m quite sure they do not dress seductively).

Chad, he is not simply saying that both men and women sin. He is saying that the two situations are parallel and they are not. A seductress who offers the opportunity to sin is NOTHING like a person who violently invades another person’s body causing harm that may last a lifetime and giving the person no choice. There is also no parallel between the victim of a horrendous crime and the person who chooses to sin, no matter how enticing the temptation. The situations have NOTHING to do with each other. But the church has tried to make them similar, telling rape victims like me that it was our fault that we were raped. The church calls rape victims sinners, unclean, damaged goods. John Piper simply does not understand. I hope that he did not mean the comparison. I hope he is just thoughtless. But he has said many cruel things in the past about God sending tornados and bridge collapses because people have sinned. In fact, he thinks that God kills children in one town because of sins in another town. So it is not a

Judeo-Christanity-Islam has treated women as subservient reproductive property since Genesis. With Augustine, the church developed a preoccupation with sex. Put these two together and the seductress can easily be classified as a female rapist.

In fact, moralists may consider the seductress to be even be considered more dangerous because her victims don’t cry out for help!

Sadly misinterpretation, or imposed interpretations of texts in the Old Testament makes Know more Than I should assessment to be, not only valid but easily detected in the three religions he mentions. The last paragraph in his answer is something about which I have pondered myself since in at least one of the religions he mentions, the rape victim is turned and punished as a perpetrator exactly for being seductress and being seductress is made evident by the “showing of her ankles”!
I believe one of the tasks of the Christian Church, apart from its declared Mission has to be the reassessment of the treatment of women. Ministers should be very careful in mentioning anything related to the sexes because it will be understood under the light of the terrible mindset Christians have today about women!
Yes, it is possible to find an answer for the correction on the way we Christians view women in the same book we “acquired” the sinful view against women.

The title of this blog is kind of inappropriate. You appear to resent John Piper and you seem to want to hurt him for saying something you don’t like. If John is to be considered even as lowly as the least of our brethren, you should treat him with the same respect that you would have for Jesus Christ. I’m hoping that you do respect Jesus Christ, of course, but treating even lesser brothers so harshly in a public forum makes me think that you may not.

“But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, ‘Raca,’ is answerable to the court. And anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell.”
– Matthew 5:22 NIV11

Your site was in my bookmarks because of an earlier post that was enriching and encouraging to me. So, I felt a little disappointment when I saw your ungracious treatment another professed Christian.

Because “latest tweet stupidity” is hardly flattering and because it obviously implies your judgement that it is common for him to tweet stupidity, I assumed that you think of him as something of a fool. I wasn’t proof-texting you, I was just declaring to you the sense of danger that I felt for your heart when I saw that blog entry.

From the treasures of your heart, something unattractive splashed out on that title for all the readers to see.

You could have handled this disagreement in a much more constructive way. For example, you could have posted something like, “John Piper’s shocking equivalence of rape by men with seduction by women”. That would tell the truth of your horror at something disturbing that John Piper has tweeted. However, your title only shouts your indignation and invites others to join in disparagement.

“Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen.”
– Ephesians 4:29 NIV11